Architect V Architectural Technician

Baffled

Can someone tell me what the main differences/responsibilities between an Architect and a Arc. Technician are?

Tar.Aldarion

architect in the first round 5 euro
sorry dunno :_)

breadmonkey

I would say that it basically boils down to this:

The architect's assistant is the architect's bitch. Like the doctor/nurse dynamic!

joe.

http://www.connexions.gov.uk/jobs4u/summary.cfm?id=118 - Architect technician

http://www.connexions.gov.uk/jobs4u/summary.cfm?id=108 - Architect


More money if you're an architect. Also need more points to do a degree Architecture Course where you can become a technicain after 2 years at least graduating with a certificate on a course like construction studies or civil engineering

[nicK]

architects design, architectural technicians draw!

(and technologists are in between in that they have more responsibilty than technicians, less responsibility than architects)

MadMoss

There are a lot of differences between the two.
Architect's are paid more, they are the design team leader and are given creative control over the project. If a building is painted blue its because the Architect wanted it that way. Architect's have more responsability, if the client has a problem his first port of call will be the Architect, this also means that the client will feel if something goes wrong its because the Architect made a mistake or was not in proper control of the project.
Architectural Technicians, or Architectural Assistants are trianed to a level at least equal to that of Architect's (in my opinion). Under instuction from the Architect they will draw up the project. Some Architects are willing to give some creative control to thier assistants, but in my experience most won't. Architectural Assistants have less responsability on a project and are paid less. However, many assistants end up knowing more about the project because they do the work of drawing all the details.
Hope this helps.

Baffled

Can an Architectural Technician go on to become an Architect. And if so, how? Do they have to do the same amount of time in college again or 1 or 2 years because they already know most of it?

MadMoss

Architectural Technicians cannont go on to become an Architect. If after u finish the Architectural Technician course u want to become an Architect (and many do after a few years of work) u have to do the entire Architect's course which is usually 5 years full time. I am not aware of any part-time Architect courses.
In fact some colleges will frown on allowing a technician into an Architect's course as they feel that the Technicians course will stifle their imagination! Rubbish in my opinion but there u go.

Dundhoone

save yourself from a life of flowerly design and do a civil engineering degree instead.....the architect comes up with the daft notion...engineers make it happen

MadMoss

Dundhoone wrote:

save yourself from a life of flowerly design and do a civil engineering degree instead.....the architect comes up with the daft notion...engineers make it happen

Not totally true, both sides are required. If only architect's were involved in the design process all buildings would look like a flower, if only engineers were involved all buildings would look like a gray cube. I think architects and engineers feed off each other.

designhead101

architects design, architectural technicians draw!

Design……. Designers design and they can also draw like architectural technicians n 2D N 3D. And they are far more creative than architects….. I find architects tend to regurgitate the same old crap over and over again……Design you don’t know the meaning of the word.

Irjudge1

designhead101 wrote: »

architects design, architectural technicians draw!

Design……. Designers design and they can also draw like architectural technicians n 2D N 3D. And they are far more creative than architects….. I find architects tend to regurgitate the same old crap over and over again……Design you don’t know the meaning of the word.

Wow they sound fantastic what the hell exactly is a designer? Is it the guy who builds his own shed in the back garden and decides where to put the window. Is it the person who bakes a cake and decides where to put the cherries on top. Architects ARE designers, designers of buildings.

Tabnabs

MadMoss wrote: »

Architectural Technicians cannont go on to become an Architect. If after u finish the Architectural Technician course u want to become an Architect (and many do after a few years of work) u have to do the entire Architect's course which is usually 5 years full time. I am not aware of any part-time Architect courses.
In fact some colleges will frown on allowing a technician into an Architect's course as they feel that the Technicians course will stifle their imagination! Rubbish in my opinion but there u go.

Technicians can indeed go on to become Architects, they normally skip the first year and generally make excellent architectural students as they have done their college partying and are there to learn. I know because both a family member and a good friend have taken this route (one in Bolton St and the other in the UK, but both Bolton St technicians).

designhead101

A designer is a person ho can design a building as good as an Architect if not better. And NO it’s not just a case of were to place the window or the beloved cherry, it is how the building is viewed by the public, how it functions as a building. I think design is all about inspiring people and making them think. It’s all about innovation and moving forward whilst remembering the past.

Tabnabs

designhead101 wrote: »

A designer is a person ho can design a building as good as an Architect if not better. And NO it’s not just a case of were to place the window or the beloved cherry, it is how the building is viewed by the public, how it functions as a building. I think design is all about inspiring people and making them think. It’s all about innovation and moving forward whilst remembering the past.

Total rubbish :rolleyes:

Designer> "Oh yes, I studied 5 years in Design and so now I can design how the building is viewed by the public, inspire them and make them think."

Architect> "Five years studying Design eh? Well what kind of design? Urban design, interior design, production design, industrial design, graphic design, arts & design education, ceramic design, web design, fashion design......."

Designer> "yes, five years studying Design and I'm better than you at design"

Architect> "....software design, game design, computer aided design, golf course design, garden design, optical design..."

Post deleted due to user behaving like an asshat. Try to remain civil everyone.

Number one

designhead101 wrote: »

A designer is a person ho can design a building as good as an Architect if not better. And NO it’s not just a case of were to place the window or the beloved cherry, it is how the building is viewed by the public, how it functions as a building. I think design is all about inspiring people and making them think. It’s all about innovation and moving forward whilst remembering the past.

What a nonsensical, uncohesive load of rubbish!

'A designer is a person ho can design a building as good as an Architect if not better.'

What does that mean? A deisgner of what is better than an architect at designing buildings? An architect is a person who is trained in the planning and design of buildings not just any idiot who picks up a pencil and decides they're a designer.

An architect is a designer; a designer is not necessarily an architect.

Irjudge1

designhead101 wrote: »

A designer is a person ho can design a building as good as an Architect if not better. And NO it’s not just a case of were to place the window or the beloved cherry, it is how the building is viewed by the public, how it functions as a building. I think design is all about inspiring people and making them think. It’s all about innovation and moving forward whilst remembering the past.

Already answered above by others.

designhead101

Architect V Architectural Technician
Can someone tell me what the main differences/responsibilities between an Architect and a Arc. Technician are?

Kareir

Firstly, on topic: My careers person said that architects do more theoretical and design work, while the technicians are more practical. Not sure how accurate this is, just quoting.

Now, secondly: This thread is halarious

_Kar.

One Cold Hand

designhead101 wrote: »

Architect V Architectural Technician
Can someone tell me what the main differences/responsibilities between an Architect and a Arc. Technician are?

It was answered quite well earlier:

MadMoss wrote: »

There are a lot of differences between the two.
Architect's are paid more, they are the design team leader and are given creative control over the project. If a building is painted blue its because the Architect wanted it that way. Architect's have more responsability, if the client has a problem his first port of call will be the Architect, this also means that the client will feel if something goes wrong its because the Architect made a mistake or was not in proper control of the project.
Architectural Technicians, or Architectural Assistants are trianed to a level at least equal to that of Architect's (in my opinion). Under instuction from the Architect they will draw up the project. Some Architects are willing to give some creative control to thier assistants, but in my experience most won't. Architectural Assistants have less responsability on a project and are paid less. However, many assistants end up knowing more about the project because they do the work of drawing all the details.
Hope this helps.

Of course it's not always this black and white. In some projects Architects will do everything (drawing up the project etc), and in some cases Arch Technicians make very good designers and are they are generally well able to run projects.

Kareir

Question: Why is there an architecture forum? :P

_Kar

Quazzie

I remember in my first year of college my lecturer described it as "the architect designs the building, and the architect technician figures out how to build it". Its always stuck with me as the best way to describe it.

One Cold Hand

Quazzie2002 wrote: »

I remember in my first year of college my lecturer described it as "the architect designs the building, and the architect technician figures out how to build it". Its always stuck with me as the best way to describe it.

I was told the engineer does that!;) Ah well, once someone does it!:)

CptnRed

as a arch tech student and aspiring architectural student, i would hope to have a fair understanding of the difference. I believe the architect is in charge of the look of the building, its effect on its residents/occupants and its purpose/function. They in effect create a piece of funtional art. The technician is trained not so much to look at the beauty of a building but to recognise certain construction methods. They take the conceptual drawings from the architect and work out the necessary structures and building materials. They are responsible for meeting building regulations as regards min heights/widths etc. They will have a better understanding of how the building should perform thermally so as to save energy. The engineer is also a crucial part of the build, especially in large scale buildings with metal structures. They specialise non-conventional structures. If something like a foundation does not meet building regs using the traditional method, the engineer can design support beams are whatever to help it comply. This allows for more innovative and complex design which the technician wouldn't be qualified in designing.

bnt

How about checking in with the body that accredits them? Becoming an Architect vs Becoming an Architectural Technician. There's also info at the UK body, CIAT.

DIT offers both courses - though they use the term Architectural Technologist (AT) instead of Technician. The courses are offered by different departments, and AT is pretty much an independent discipline once you get past 1st year, as noted.

dan_d

I'm dealing with both an architect and a technician on my job, and always wondered about the difference.Cptnred seems to sum it up best, except for the part about the engineer.....the engineer designs the structure full stop. Neither the architect or the technician have much, if any, of a say in that. They are not qualified to design structural members.At all.
My experience is that the technician knows the regs inside out with regard to widths/heights in stairs/toilets/corridors etc.The architect seems a lot more focused on the overall concept - less about the detail maybe....

tatrman

Let's put it right.

Who is an Architectural Technician? - specialist in application of technology to the Architecture. Good Architectural Technician has perfect knowledge of the latest technologies and knows how to apply them to the given design. if an architect designs a glazed façade. Architectural technician is the person who draws up all the necessary technical drawings for manufacturer and builder.

Who is an Architect?- simply it is a designer who is trained in building design and urban planning. that is one part. To be a person responsible for the whole project an Architect must be member of recognised professional body like Royal institute of Architects in Ireland. Such a person takes overall responsibility for the project and must have an insurance if something goes wrong. To design a building is not just picking up the colour or calculating a truss or sketching the shape of the window. Well designed and coordinated building can after all save a lot of cost and hassle. Good Architect has decent knowledge of all aspects of the building and should be well able to design construction but more importantly should be able to coordinate all parties involved in final building design.

uzayrcoodraty

After the degree BSc Architectural Technology, can i eligible to follow a course on Master in Architecture?